Isn't it interesting how players react when they believe they are playing a weaker/stronger player? Just today I played an OTB game with a member of my chess club, and I confidently thought I was winning. My opponent checkmated me, as usually happens when I play games like that. In contrast, with games where I believe I am the weaker player, I get very nervous, but often also play my best game. If there were no such thing as ratings or any other analysis of player strength, think what might happen.
Psychological Aspect of Chess
Sort:
Sep 10, 2014
0
#3
I struggle with weaker players also. You never know what they will do.
I have heard the same thing said about professional baseball pitchers pitching to rookie batters. With veteran batters the pitcher can use strategy and use one pitch to set up another. With rookies the batter doesn't read the subtleties enough to be set up.
Sep 11, 2014
0
#4
As I read Silman I realize that charging after the king and neglecting sound positional play is a mistake. I think against "weaker players" (I'm on a losing streak and feel pretty weak right about now) we forget positional play and try to bag a king in a hurry.
Patience, Grasshopper, even when we think we should mate in 12 moves, is the key.
when i was young, before i ever played chess, my chinese "uncle" showed me his chess set. he was a cook on an atlantic freighter. i think he played alot of chess with a lot of "rough men" (who could probably beat the pantaloons off of most of the people here )..yet i did not learn chess or play it...but..
..i learned to respect chess for i respected pon wing...
..thirty years or so later i started to play chess on the internet...
...i play poorly..
...the question is about the psychological nature or desire to play chess.
this is my contribution. to love chess, because of an outside life circumstance, is sometimes the foundation of a lifelong reason for the playing of chess, but with no true ability to do it.
the psychological desire to sit among the "chessmen" may have nothing to do with the game itself but rather to remember the kindness of someone whose memory you identify with chess.
Mikhail Tal's barren stare across the chessboard could make the most chess battle-hardened GM wet him/herself and run to his/her parents.
( sigh ) i thought this was a forum for intellectual thought and not about chess.
is there not a chess group for chess discussion ?
sorry to speak up but i feel i must.
( bad, bad rabbit !).
...but then a stare is a stare....!
Just thought it to be relevant...I would post that even on a blog or different site, though, of course, clarifying the occupation of the person as non-chessers/patzers may not know.
patzer, sir !
i take umbrage at this dispargement !.
within my range of ability i am quite the dandy player ( somewhere in the low 700's ).
onedeadrabbit wrote:
( sigh ) i thought this was a forum for intellectual thought and not about chess.
is there not a chess group for chess discussion ?
sorry to speak up but i feel i must.
( bad, bad rabbit !).
...but then a stare is a stare....!
The forum is for both the intellectual aspects of chess and other intellectual aspects.
[COMMENT DELETED]
onedeadrabbit wrote:
patzer, sir !
i take umbrage at this dispargement !.
within my range of ability i am quite the dandy player ( somewhere in the low 700's ).
I am not implying that you are a patzer. You are clearly not ;). I was saying that I would clarify who Tal was if I were to be discussing it with non-chess players outside of this site.
Sep 20, 2014
0
#13
There was an article on this recently on the home page.
Summarizing in my own words, when you're in a fairly locked position you can launch psychological gambits. They might win but they entail risk.
I have the "turd in the punchbowl" maneuver, pulling some reckless random move that renders an opponent dazed and confused, or laughing so hard they commit some lethal blunder.
I recently performed a Viking funeral attack in a game I thought I was destined to lose, so I would go down in flames rather than be ground down. It generated a winning attack, and no one was more surprised than I was.
People complain that they play poorly against lower ranking individuals because their moves are so random. Maybe the poorly ranked player is engaging in a deep psychological strategy of confuse and bewilder. Turd in the punchbowl, if you will.
That's quite an - er - vivid description. But I agree, when pitted against a patzer, even if I win, I invoulentarily play at a level ~200 Elo points below my present level of ~1200.
¡Ay, caramba!
Sep 20, 2014
0
#17
When you play live chess/OTB against a very quick player its annoying psychologically .. I heard from a famous spanish GM miguel illescas, that players like vishy anand move very quickly even in long time controls
He said that when he played against him, he spent half hour to make a move and vishy replied in less than one second (like a premove)
Other kind of things is in blitz games when your opponent play unsound openings or nonsense moves and you start spending time trying to punish him to finally loose on time. And of course when opponents try to intimidate you with very aggresive play, it may affect you and the opposite, your opponent play very quite chess just to prove your patience
Anyway if you are cold-headed enough shouldn't be a problem, like fisher said "i dont believe in psychology, i believe in good moves"
I feel that my enemy ist the one sitting on my side o the board, if I can control him ,(myself) and play clean and flawless, then it doesnt matter much how strong my opponent is. Thursday I did beat a player rated far above me otb-90min30sec.
He was the one with the psycological problem. He thought he ought to beat me, and played slightly too sharp, and was outplayed from move ca 60 and out (to 80).
To me a half point of more was more than expected. I considered asking for draw, but thought that the game was to interesting, and should be played to the end, regardless of result.
[COMMENT DELETED]
...my upper comment was deleted...( for i am old and the keyboard is tiny ).
...i wish just to point out that emotion is more of an affect on chess than psychology.
...psychology is a false invention.
...there are only three driving factors in human life, biology, emotion and reason.
...since this post is about "psychology" i will rebut with the proper shield.
...chess is about emotion...impulse or control...
..this is why judit was taught by her father to sit on her hands before she was allowed to make a move...to remove impulse and emotion from the choice...
...psychology is a false image of reality..it is a false word for the truth, which, in the end is alway simple...emotion and or biology...( are they siamese demons ? ) who live to fight reason ?
This thread is specifically devoted to discussing the psychological aspect of chess.